By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: All eyes are on Justice Kennedy at the conclusion of last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. As a closely analyzed swing vote, the Justice’s words are scrutinized like the tea leaves of the upcoming verdict expected in June. In a well-researched piece […]
Aim Your Oral Argument at Your Judge’s Motivating Principle Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A lot can happen in fifty-two seconds. In last week’s historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of the President’s healthcare reform, the Justices allowed an unprecedented six hours of oral arguments. While still not appearing on television, the Court allowed the next best thing: same day
Oral Arguments: Cut In To Your Case Before You’re Cut Off By Your Judge Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Justice Scalia strongly believes that you should not be forced to buy broccoli. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing the legality of the Affordable Care Act, with Tuesday’s oral arguments focusing on whether an individual mandate to buy health insurance is consistent with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Defending the
Don’t Let Your Judge Reduce You to Absurdity Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – Judges, arbitrators, mediators: legally trained and neutral minds, without the juror’s baggage of selective perception, predisposition, and bias, right? Not really. In the previous two posts on motivated thinking and instrumental argument, I wrote that an audience’s reasoning and advocacy is driven by emotions and not just by logic. While a jury’s decision making
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – The old Rolling Stones song notwithstanding, it is likely that most Americans have very little sympathy for the devilish war Congress has waged over raising the debt limit. This impasse, like most intractable disagreements, can be seen as a failure of empathy. In this case, a failure of each
Sympathy for the Devil, but Empathy for Your Judge Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – The popular image of legal argument is most often a polished and professional presentation, made from a podium in front of a jury or judge. To those of us court watchers who read transcripts, it is clear that the biggest roll-up-your-sleeves-and-argue moments are often at sidebar – those conferences conducted with counsel
Remember, it’s a Sidebar, Not a Bar Fight: Reason With, Not At, Your Adversary and Judge Read More »
By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – Anyone who argues in front of judges knows that human factors can weigh as heavily as the law in determining your judge’s decisions. But it is still possible at times to be surprised at the degree of influence, as well as the banality of those human factors. Case in
By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – For all the careful attention and planning that goes into a good opening statement story, and a strong closing argument structure, the rebuttal can end up sounding like an afterthought — especially when it is an afterthought. Composed on the fly while listening to your opponent’s argument, your rebuttal can often be reduced to
Avoid the “And Another Thing…” Style in Rebuttal Read More »
By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – The need for a theme that communicates, simplifies, and unites your case has become common sense to litigators. But the way that we come up with a theme is a little more mysterious. Some see theme creation as an act of laborious analysis, developed out of a painstaking accounting
Know Your ‘God Terms’ and Your ‘Devil Terms’ Read More »
By: Dr. Ken Broda Bahm – We’ve now been using the phrase “the vanishing jury trial,” for almost a decade, and the decline continues. The days when experienced lawyers could count on finding themselves in front of a jury several times a month are gone, as today’s cases are increasingly resolved by judges, mediators, arbitrators, and other routes
The Jury is Out: Make the Most of Your Experience In an Era of Fewer Trials Read More »